YOGESH NARAYAN PAL vs POST UP CIRCLE on 5 November 2026

ORDER

Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./313/2023

“(i)​ This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay salary to the applicants from 15.10.2014 upto their date of joining at new place of posting pursuant to order dated 27.04.2016 along with admissible interest thereupon.

(ii) ​ Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicants.

(iii) ​ Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”

2. ​ Brief facts of this case are that while the applicants were working as Postal Assistants under Gorakhpur division, respondent No.4, under the direction of respondent No.3, issued transfer order pursuant to CPMG, UP Circler memo dated 15.10.2014, conveyed under PMG, Gorakhpur memo dated 15.10.2014, transferring the applicants from Gorakhpur Division to other division under rule 37 of P&T Manual Vol-4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid transfer, all the applicants filed separate Original Applications No. 1369/2014, 1388/2014, 1389/2014, 1390/2014, 1391/2014 and 1392/2014 before this Tribunal challenging the impugned transfer order dated 15.10.2014. Thereafter, vide interim relief granted on different dates in respect of all the applicants by this Tribunal, the order of transfer was stayed with further orders to not force the applicants to join the new place of posting. When the interim orders were not complied with, the applicants filed Contempt Petition No. 133/2014 in Original Application No. 1388/2014, Contempt Petition No. 134/2014 in Original Application No. 1392/14, Contempt Petition No. 135/2014 in Original Application No. 1369/2014, Contempt Petition No. 136/2014 in Original Application No. 1390/2014, Contempt Petition No. 137/2014 in Original Application No. 1389/2014 and Contempt Petition No. 138/2014 in Original Application No. 1391/2014. The respondents had filed a Writ Petition No. 56997/2015 against the interim order dated 28.10.2014 and vide order dated 06.10.2015 the Writ Petition was finally disposed of directing this Tribunal to decide the stay vacation application first and proceed with the contempt petition only thereafter. Vide order dated 27.04.2016, the interim orders allowed in favour of the applicants were vacated with

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./313/2023

further directions to pay the entire salary to the applicants as there was an interim relief in their favour. Thereafter vide order dated 21.12.2016 the Original Applications were finally dismissed. While deciding the Original Application the Tribunal has observed that since the controversy has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Janardhan Debanath and the applicants since have joined the new place of posting, hence after joining the new place of posting, the issue of transfer became infructuous. Consequently, the contempt petitions filed by the applicants also became infructuous and the same were dismissed and the notices issued against the respondents were discharged. While deciding the contempt petition, the Tribunal has observed that interim order has been merged with the final order and the interim order was also vacated vide order dated 27.04.2016, hence, there appears no willful disobedience.

3. ​ Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that this Tribunal, while passing the interim order in the aforesaid Original Applications, had stayed the operation of the transfer orders with further stipulation to not force the applicants to join the new place of posting. After the vacation of the interim order, the applicants immediately joined at their place of posting. The respondents in terms of the order dated 27.04.2016 allowed them to join at the new place of posting but they did not fully comply with the intervening order for payment of salary from the stage of interim order up to 27.04.2016. All the applicants thereafter submitted representations before respondent No.2 through proper channel for grant of salary for the intervening period i.e. from 16.10.2014 to the date of their joining at new place of posting. The representations of the applicants submitted before the Superintendent of Post Offices at the new assignment, were forwarded to the respondent No.4 for necessary compliance towards their end. The applicants after waiting a reasonable time period moved an execution application No. 10008/2017 and thereby prayed that the order may be executed and the respondents may be directed to pay the salary of the intervening period. The

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./313/2023

respondents did not file any counter reply to the execution application rather raised a preliminary objection on 06.01.2022. According to them, the aforesaid execution application suffered from miss-joinder of applicants. According to them, the applicants should have separately filed an execution application. Further, the execution application was barred by limitation. The execution application on the question of its maintainability was heard on 24.01.2023 and finally disposed of with observations that no execution is permissible. It was observed that the final order shows that the interim order was passed at the time when the applicants were also relieved, therefore they themselves are responsible for not joining the new place of posting.

4. ​ Learned counsel for the applicants states that it appears from the orders passed in Original Applications, contempt petitions and execution application, that since the interim orders got merged with the final orders whereby the Original Applications were dismissed as infructuous, the interim order dated 27.04.2016 was not liable to be executed and further the execution as claimed by applicants does not flow from the final order dated 21.12.2016. He contends that here it would be significant to submit that even if assuming that the interim order has got merged with the final order, the observation made in interim relief would not automatically be wiped out. Under the strength of interim order, the respondents ought to have permitted applicants to join on the existing post and further since there was specific interim order that the applicants shall not join new place of posting, they were all times under dilemma- one hand they were not allowed joining and on the other, no payment of salary could be made to them for the period in question. He argued that in fact in the contempt petition filed against the respondents for non compliance of interim order, vide order dated 24.09.2015 this Tribunal passed an order allowing one month time to the respondents within which they must have complied with the interim order. The Tribunal has also observed that since the applicants have not been allowed to assume their duties by the respondents, they must ensure payment

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./313/2023

of salary from the date when the interim order was passed till the date they were allowed to resume duties. The respondents have never passed any order regarding the payment of salary to the applicants although in accordance with the fundamental rules, they were under obligation to pass specific orders in a time bound manner. He states that although the applicant No. 4 and 6 have retired from service, the respondents in sheer violation of their obligations to dispose of the claim of applicant did not pass any order till date.

5. ​ In their counter to the plea of the applicants, learned counsel for the respondents contend that the applicants were identified as main offenders in 2014 Gorakhpur HO fraud case and were transferred out of the division vide order dated 15.10.2014 on administrative grounds under rule-37 of Postal Manual Volume IV. The applicants were also relieved from their office on 15.10.2014 in compliance with SSPOs Gorakhpur memo dated 15.10.2014. Being aggrieved, the applicants filed different original applications before this Tribunal. As a matter of fact, vide interim orders allowed at different dates in respect of all the applicants issued by this Tribunal, the transfer order was stayed with the comment that “Till that time as the orders seem to be punitive in nature, operation of the order dated 15.10.2014 is stayed till the next date of hearing”. The Writ Petition filed (W.P. No. 56997/2015) by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court against the interim order dated 28.10.2014 was decided vide order dated 06.10.2015 directing the Tribunal to decide the stay vacation first keeping in abeyance the contempt proceedings till then.

6. ​ Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the interim orders allowed in favour of the applicants were vacated vide order dated 27.04.2016 but the respondents were directed to pay the entire salary to the applicants as there was an interim relief in their favour for not joining the new place of posting. Keeping in view that the Tribunal directed payment of salary to the applicants without considering that for the said period the applicants have not

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./313/2023

rendered the services in favour of the Department, the Department of Posts, India preferred a Review Application No. 25 to 30 of 2016 but they were dismissed under circulation. The respondents further argued that the O.A.s filed by the applicants were dismissed and the interim order stood merged with the final order without any specific direction regarding payment of salary for the intervening period when the stay was operating.

7. ​ I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

8. ​ Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants were transferred in the year 2014 and they had challenged the transfer order before this Bench of the Tribunal through Original Applications No. 1369/2014, 1388/2014, 1389/2014, 1390/2014, 1391/2014 and 1392/2014 and interim protection was allowed in their favour as on dated 28.10.2014, the operation of the transfer order dated 15.10.2014 was stayed. After the grant of interim relief, the respondents preferred stay vacation applications which were pending. Contempt petitions were also filed for non-compliance of the interim order wherein direction was given by the Tribunal to the competent authority to file the compliance affidavit. The order passed in the Contempt Petition was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court by the respondents through Writ - A.No.-56997/2015 which was decided on dated 06.10.2015 by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad with a direction to the Tribunal to first decide the stay vacation application and keep the proceedings of the Contempt Petition in abeyance till then. It is further argued that vide order dated 27.04.2016, this Tribunal decided the Stay Vacation Application and interim relief granted to the applicants was vacated but a direction was issued to the respondents to pay the salary to the applicants for the period when the stay was in operation in favour of the applicants. The applicants joined at their new place of posting as soon as the stay was vacated. Thereafter, the O.A. filed by the applicants became infructuous and were dismissed as such. Since there was specific direction given while passing the order

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./313/2023

dated 27.04.2016 for payment of salary for the period in which the applicants were not permitted to join the duty. Contempt petitions were also dismissed on the ground that the final order in the O.A.s have been passed and the interim order has merged with the final dismissal order and there is no direction passed by the Tribunal in the final order to pay the salary for the period in which the applicants were not permitted to join at the original place of posting. Later, Smt. Priyanka Singh (one of the applicants) filed an Execution Application No.8/2017 in O.A./1369/2014 which was decided on 24.01.2023 and the Execution Application was also dismissed. Thus, referring to the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the applicants argued that since compliance of the direction given in the order dated 27.04.2016 (order vacating the interim relief) has not been made i.e. the salary for the aforesaid period has not been paid to the applicants, thus, the present Original Application was filed. It is further argued that in the order vacating the interim protection, there was specific direction to pay the salary, thus, the present O.A. is maintainable irrespective of this fact that the previous Original Applications filed by the applicants were dismissed for having become infructuous. Thus, he argued to allow the O.A. and to direct the respondents to pay the salary of the period in question.

9. ​ Learned counsel for the respondents argued that immediately after the grant of interim relief, a stay vacation application was filed by the respondents which was not decided timely. The respondents approached the Hon’ble High Court through Writ- A.No.-56997/2015 and direction was given on dated 06.10.2015 by the Hon’ble High Court to decide the Stay Vacation Application first. It is further argued that the stay granted in the matters have been vacated vide order dated 27.04.2016. Although direction was given in the order vacating the interim relief to pay the entire salary to the applicants as there was an interim relief in their favour for not joining the new place of posting, it is further argued that the Original Applications have been dismissed as having become infructuous, thus interim order granted in favour

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./313/2023

of the applicants have merged with the final order. There was no specific direction in the final order to pay the salary as directed in the order dated 27.04.2016. It is also argued that the Contempt Petition as well as the Execution Application filed on behalf of the applicants have been dismissed, thus, the present O.A. cannot be entertained or allowed as the ground taken in the O.A. for payment of salary for the said period is not acceptable. Thus, he argued to dismiss the O.A.

10. ​ I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.

11. ​ Initially in this matter the applicants were transferred from their earlier place of posting at Gorakhpur to another stations vide order dated 15.10.2014. They preferred Original Application nos. 1369/2014, 1388/2014, 1389/2014, 1390/2014, 1391/2014 and 1392/2014 and this Tribunal vide order dated 28.10.2014 stayed the operation of the transfer order dated 15.10.2014. The respondents preferred the Stay Vacation Application in all the O.A.s and also approached the Hon’ble High Court through Writ- A.No.-56997/2015 which was decided on dated 06.10.2015 with the direction to decide the Stay Vacation Application first and then proceed with the contempt petition. It further appears that in compliance with the direction of the Hon’ble High Court, the Tribunal passed the common order dated 27.04.2016 deciding collectively all the Stay Vacation Applications filed in the different Original Applications by the applicants passing the following order:- “​ Accordingly, taking into consideration that in the instant case the issues are almost covered by the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Janardhan Debanath (Supra) the stay granted on 28.10.2014 is vacated. But the respondents are directed to pay the entire salary to the applicant as there was an interim relief in their favour for not to join to the new place of posting.”

12. ​ It further appears that the original applications filed by the applicants against the transfer order dated 15.10.2014 were dismissed as having become infructuous as the applicants joined at

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./313/2023

the transferred place of posting. The contempt petitions were also dismissed finding no wilful disobedience. It is also evident from the record that one Execution Application No.8/2017 filed by one of the applicants namely Smt. Priyanka Singh was also dismissed on 24.01.2023.

13. ​ Now the question is whether in the case of vacation of the interim protection allowed to the applicants in the O.A.s and dismissal of the original applications without any specific direction to pay the salary for the period as claimed in the present O.A., the applicants are still entitled for the salary during the period of interim protection from the transfer order or not. Perusal of the order dated 29.03.2017 passed in the Contempt Petition No.135/2014 filed by the applicant (Smt. Priyanka Singh) in O.A./1369/2014 shows that this Tribunal has taken note of the above facts while deciding the aforesaid contempt petition. For reference the order dated 29.03.2017 in Contempt Petition No. 135/2014 is extracted below:- Heard learned counsel for applicant Sri A. Tripathi and learned counsel for respondents Sri L.P. Tiwari and Sri Saurabh Srivastava.

2. ​ The present CCP is preferred by the applicant for non- compliance of interim order dated 28.10.2014 passed in O.A. No. 1369/2014, through which the Tribunal directed that till that time as the transfer order seems to be punitive in nature, operation of the order dated 15.10.2014 is stayed till the next date of hearing.

3. ​ Notices were issued to the respondents who filed counter affidavit.

4. ​ When the respondents failed to comply with the interim order dated 28.10.2014, the applicant filed the present contempt petition and after exchange of pleadings, this Tribunal passed order dated 24.9.2015 through which it has been observed that since the applicant has not been allowed to resume his duties by the respondents they must ensure payment of his salary from the date when the interim order was passed till the date on which he is allowed to resume his duties and listed the CCP on 5.11.2015 and on that date, respondents shall file compliance of the order.

5. ​ Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.9.2015, the Department filed the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56998 of 2015 which was disposed of vide order dated

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./313/2023

6.10.2015 and Hon'ble High Court while disposing of the writ petition observed that by requiring the Tribunal to decide the stay vacation application filed on behalf of the petitioner, preferably within four weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before it. The certified copy of this order shall be presented before the Tribunal within one week from today and for a period of five weeks the order impugned dated 24.9.2015 shall remain in abeyance and the same shall abide by the order passed on the stay vacation application.

6. ​ The Tribunal by means of common order dated 27.4.2016 passed in O.A. No. 1369/2014,O.A. No. 1388/2014, Ο.Λ. Νο. 1389/2014, Ο.Α. Νο.1390/2014, O.A. No. 1391/2014 and O.A. No. 1392/2014 vacated the stay granted on 31.10.2014. But the respondents were directed to pay the entire salary to the applicant as there was an interim relief in their favour for not to join to the new place of posting. Ordered accordingly.

7. ​ Learned counsel for respondents filed Supplementary Counter Affidavit dated 10.1.2017 through which he has annexed order dated 21.12.2016 through which the original application filed by the applicant has been dismissed by this Tribunal.

8. ​ Since the O.A. is finally disposed of, as such it is settled proposition of law that interim order always merges in the final order after decree is passed. This issue has also been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi reported in (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 307 and Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "17. Application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC Hés only where disoobedience/breach of an injunction granted or order complained of was one that is granted by the court under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, which is naturally to ensure during the pendeney of the suit. However, once a suit is decreed, the interim order, if any merges into the final order. No litigant can derive any benefit from mere pendency of case' in a court of law, as the interim order always merges in the final order to be passed in the case and if the case is ely dismissed, the interim order stands nullified ultimately automatically."

9. ​ As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Haribhau Dagdu Tandale Vs. Industrial Cooperative Associaton Ltd. And Others reported in (1996) 10 SCC-714 the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under: "The other contention that the interim order merges with the final order and therefore, in the absence of any separate appeal against the final order, the appen) against interim order will become infructuous, is also without substance. If the foundation is knocked off, structure standing on it

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./313/2023

cannot stand in the air and will automatically falls down.

10. ​ As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Shankar and Others Vs. Board of Directors, U.P.S.R.T.C. and another reported in 1995 Sipp(2) SCC 726, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under: "At the same time once the petition was dismissed without any adjudication on merits the effect of dismissal was that interim order stood merged in the final order and the order of absorption stood nullified,"

11. ​ As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amarjeet Singh and Others vs. Devi Ratan and Others reported in (2010) 1 SCC 417, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under: "No litigant can derive any benefit from mere pendency of case in a court of law, as the interim order always merges in the final order to be passed in the case and if the writ petition is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically."

12. ​ In the case of Jaipur Municipal Corpn vs. C. L. Mishra reported in (2005) 8 SCC 423, the Hon'ble Apex has been observed that interim orders cease to be operative on passing of final order, with which they ultimately merge. It has also been observed that Normally, contempt is a matter between the court and the alleged contemnor. The applicant who files the contempt petition does so only for the purpose of bringing it to the notice of the court that the order passed by it has not been complied by it.

13. ​ In view of the above observations of the Apex Court and also on the basis of facts of the present contempt petition, this contempt petition was filed against the interim order passed in favour of the applicant when the same was not complied with. However, the respondents preferred Writ Petition against the said interim order and the Hon'ble High Court stayed the operation of the said interim order till the disposal of the stay vacation application moved by the respondents.

14. ​ It is not disputed that this Court vacated the stay granted earlier as an interim measure vide order dated 27.4.2016 and later on this Court also dismissed the OA filed by the applicant.

15. ​ In view of the dismissal of the OA, the interim order merges with the final Order and further the interim order was also stayed by this Tribunal. Hence, there is no willful disobedience of the aforesaid Order passed by this Tribunal and the present Contempt Petition renders infructuous and the same is accordingly dismissed as

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./313/2023

having become infructuous. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged.”

14. ​ From above it is clear that the Tribunal was aware of all the facts on the basis of which the relief in the present O.A. has been claimed while deciding the aforesaid Contempt Petition. It has been observed that the order dated 27.04.2016 passed as a common order in all the different original applications filed by the applicants against the transfer order had directed to “pay the entire salary to the applicant as there was an interim relief in their favour for not to join in the new place of posting”. Yet, taking into account certain case laws and observing that this Court vacated the stay granted earlier as an interim measure vide order dated 27.04.2016 and later on this court also dismissed the O.A. filed by the applicant, the interim order merges with the final order and hence there is no willful disobedience of the aforesaid order passed by this Tribunal, the Contempt Petition was dismissed as infructuous.

15. ​ Thereafter the Execution Application No.8 of 2017 filed by one of the applicants Smt. Priyanka Singh in O.A./1369/2014 was also decided on 24.01.2023 with the following observation:- “19. Therefore, it appears that the court already held that the interim order has been merged into the final order. The issue involved in this case has already been decided at the time of deciding the contempt petition. The aforesaid order has not been challenged by the applicant, hence this court cannot consider the aforesaid relief only by converting the nature of the petition from “contempt” to “execution application”.

20. ​ Therefore, no execution application is permissible. The final order shows that the petitions were dismissed. When the interim order was passed, at that time the applicants were also relieved. Therefore, they themselves are responsible for not joining at new place of posting.

21. ​ Hence, the Execution Application is dismissed.”

16. ​ The orders as quoted above in the Contempt Petition and the Execution Petition conspicuously show that although the other applicants than Smt. Prinyanka Singh have also joined in filing the present Original Application, yet, the cause of action giving rise to the present Original Application has already been decided

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./313/2023

by this Tribunal. It has also been observed in the Execution Application No.8/2017 that “The issue involved in this case has already been decided at the time of deciding the contempt petition. The aforesaid order has not been challenged by the applicant, hence this court cannot consider the aforesaid relief only by converting the nature of the petition from “contempt” to “execution application””. The matter, as such, can undisputedly be deduced as being barred by the principle of res judicata. As the applicant/s did not challenge the order passed by this Tribunal in the aforesaid Contempt Petition No.135/2014 filed in O.A./1369/2014 as well as the Execution Application discussed in the preceding paragraph, they cannot be permitted to reagitate the same issue again through this Original Application.

17. ​ In view of the aforesaid discussions, the present O.A. is not liable to be allowed and the same is dismissed. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

( Justice Om Prakash VII) ​ ​ ​ Member (J) Madhu​​ ​

MADHU KUMARI